2 ms·

Before Google and Apple's forays into computational photography, long exposures used to be associated with blurring, which was not a substitute for what the hum

• dylan604 2y ago
  who what when where? Please, don't confuse your misconception of what dragging the shutter speed would do in your day to day usage vs what professions do with long exposure. Sure, adding motion blur is an effect one can achieve with long exposure. You need some extra things like ND filters to avoid over exposing, but that a technique someone is specifically looking to achieve. It's not a mistake from something my mom would do. We've been using long exposure for things like light painting well before Apple/Google. We've been using long exposure for astrophotography for a long time as well. I still feel utter respect for Hubble et al night after night manually guiding the scope to keep the image in frame. In fact, the same frame of film would be exposed for multiple hours each night for multiple nights before finally being developed. What you've associated things with in your mind does not mean the rest of the world only associates the same things in the same way.
  • esafak 2y ago
    A long exposure by definition means leaving the shutter open longer, causing blurring unless you are using computational photography or, as I said, the object is static. Apple and Google have eliminated the blurring that inevitably came with long exposures, in the realm of consumer photography. Of course, scientists had been able to independently obtain similar results using techniques similar to Google and Apple. Light painting is not about compensating for low light. On the contrary, it typically involves reducing the ambient light in order to manually "paint" with a light bulb for artistic effect. Which part of the above are you debating?
    • dylan604 2y ago
      Any one attempting long exposure is not trying to do it in a tracking sense. They are doing it for a static shot. It is a deliberate decision to leave the shutter open. If they are doing that in the day time to add "motion" to the image by having the blurring, it is a deliberate decision. You attempting to take a static picture in low lighting conditions where the camera's auto settings are dragging the shutter and unable to take a proper picture because you can't hold it still long enough for that shutter is not the same thing. At all. I like your "reducing the ambient" to really let me know you have no clue what I'm referring to, but that's okay. this whole thread is just wasted energy
    • ianburrell 2y ago
      "Except if the subject is static" is most of long exposure photos. Blurring is frequently the goal. Blurring waterfalls is a popular technique. As is blurring the ocean. Or streaking of light from cars. Searching for "long exposure" shows these techniques. They use tripods to keep some things static. Smartphones can make those photos just as well as cameras with the computational photography turned off. The limitation is using neutral density filter to make exposure work.
      • esafak 2y ago
        Yes, historically it is most of them, and I am saying that is now no longer a technical necessity, but an artistic choice.
    • gwill 2y ago
      long exposures don't inherently mean blurring. The camera or mount can move to track a moving object, keeping it sharp. Astrophotography has been and still is done without computational photography.
      • dylan604 2y ago
        > and still is done without computational photography. um, ackshully, lots of computational editing is being done now. The image of Sag A* was heavily computed. They are now having to use computed images to remove all of the made on earth objects in the sky from Starlink to planes. There's a lot of stuff done to astroimages now and computational editing is making its way there.
        • gwill 2y ago
          when i said that it is still done without computational editing, i didn't mean that all astrophotography is done without it. i means that some is done without it